It got up to 6.9% in 2014, so probably over 7% by now. In winter it's probably one percent.

Is this 6.9% what was observed during a clear summer day? Was this over some extended period? What was the total calculated over the year? What happened when those clouds came as they frequently do in Germany? What was the percentage at night?

It got up to 6.9% in 2014, so probably over 7% by now. In winter it's probably one percent.

Is this 6.9% what was observed during a clear summer day? Was this over some extended period? What was the total calculated over the year? What happened when those clouds came as they frequently do in Germany? What was the percentage at night?

In 2014, 34.93 TWh out of 519.13 TWh total = 6.7%In 2015, 36.58 TWh out of 559.23 TWh total = 6.5%

Part of the reason for the increase is the increased exports. I think the cola plants decided to stop ramping down on sunny days, and export at low prices instead.

The emergency measures are needed to ease punishing costs for South Australian industry as National Electricity Market (NEM) prices in the state have frequently surged above $1000 a megawatt hour this month and at one point on Tuesday hit the $14,000MWh maximum price.

Complaints from business about the extreme prices – in normal times they are below $100 – prompted the state government to ask energy company ENGIE to switch its mothballed Pelican Point gas power station back on.

This other bit should be of no surprise to anyone with even the slightest of education in economics.

Quote:

Energy experts say South Australia's heavy reliance on wind energy is compounding its problems in two ways, first by forcing the remaining baseload generators to earn more revenue in shorter periods of time when the wind isn't blowing, and secondly by forcing baseload coal and gas generators out of the market altogether.

Initially, the average wholesale price of electricity in South Australia declined from a spot price of > $80 MWh-1 in 2009-2010, to $42 MWh-1 in 2010-2011 (Australian Energy Regulator 2013). The decline in wholesale price was due in part to wind generators sometimes bidding at negative prices because of their ability to earn and sell renewable energy certificates to cover their costs (Australian Energy Regulator 2012). However in 2012-2013, the South Australian wholesale electricity spot price rose by over 70 % (Australian Energy Regulator 2013). The main driver of this rise was a price spike in autumn. This was unusual; autumn is a period of typically subdued demand, and the event occurred against a backdrop of generally lower demand in the National Electricity Market (Australian Energy Regulator 2013). The Australian Energy Regulator attributed the price spike to commercial decisions (i.e., cost control) from non-wind suppliers to take some generating capacity offline, which increased the wholesale price of electricity (Australian Energy Regulator 2013). The Australian Energy Regulator highlighted that the State’s reliance on wind-generated electricity had driven down spot prices, thereby eroding the returns for other generators. During this event, South Australia’s electricity imports were at their highest for six years (Australian Energy Regulator 2013). This illustrates system costs rising perversely from increasing reliance on subsidised, variable renewable energy generators whose output is uncorrelated with demand.

This shows why the reliable energy producers are leaving the market, they cannot compete with an energy source that is subsidized by the government. I know people will counter with a claim that ALL energy is subsidized by the government, which may be true. What sets wind and solar apart is that they get paid by the government to produce energy regardless of the demand. This can force prices negative for short periods, creating costs for other energy producers that they must absorb in times when the wind does not blow, and creating an incentive for industrial customers to cash in on this subsidy with wasteful practices. For example, an iron recycling plant that may not normally operate at night may have someone on the night shift be there to turn on the furnaces when prices go negative to get paid for their electricity use, they would be heating nothing but the air but they'd be paid to do it. Anyone that claims this would not happen is unimaginably naive.

This is a story being told over and over again where only the names and places are different.

_________________Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.

The article also discussed the Russian AES-2006 reactor, which could be a formidable competitor to the French-designed EPR and which has similar active and passive safety features. This reactor will also be built in Finland. To important things are mentioned that may have benefited the Russians:

- The Russians kept on building nuclear power plants during the past decades, despite economic difficulties sometimes, enabling them to maintain the engineering know-how

- The structure and offering of Rosatom, which can offer all-in-one solutions which prevents difficult dealings with all kinds of sub-contractors

I sorta ran into the EPR vs VVER comparison from another angle and came to a similar conclusion. Finland's been a pretty chilling story for who's performing and who's not in the nuclear industry and by my count the Russians have got 32 reactors under construction or in fairly solid planning since 2000. The messing around of Siemens and Areva on the joint-venture and then the breakup of Areva didn't do the EPR any favors either. Put simply the nuclear industry in the west needs to get it's act together either by pushing through to SMRs or by working out how to get projects in on time and budget.

In particular regards to Germany and it's plan I'm pretty worried. While we may be sure that solar-only won't work while the Germans are still running coal plants it'll be hard to convince them out of their delusion, power outages could shake them out of their complacency but that's unlikely to happen while they keep the coal around. Worse yet they really are stuck with coal due to Europe's apprehension about being over-dependent on Russia for natural gas which not only incurs the additional CO2 cost of using coal but the inefficiencies of using coal to load-follow vs a gas turbine. None of this is helped by the fact that the French nuclear effort is running into some trouble recently with the quality concerns about their built plants and the immense build costs of their EPRs.

Despite the billions spent on wind and solar, the country is still hooked on coal, relying on it for almost 40 percent of its electricity. Coal provides the backup power needed when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun isn’t shining, something that will become even more crucial when the last nuclear plants close in 2022.

Kirk, I wonder how big a one-million kilo pile of coal looks? Next to that pile could be an immensely smaller one-kilo pile of refined thorium (that is hardly a radiation hazard)—to show the minimal energy density advantage of nuclear over chemical energy. The pile of coal in that photo would be so big, the thorium pile would have to be circled and pointed out!

ITER may work in 2050. Or it may not. How much coal will Germany burn in the next 32 years?

_________________"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

To make best use of renewables, they have to expand storage. Carbon taxes are a negative policy. They could use wind energy to directly produce compressed air and store it in modified towers.Solar energy could be stored in lower cost rather than lower mass batteries and used mainly as 12 volts dc.For any acceptable use of coal, it should be gasified underground leaving bottom ash in place. Suspended matter should be removed prior to use to avoid its discharge into air.They could utilise their used nuclear fuel in IMSR type low cost steam generators and use it for underground gasification of coal.There is a Wikipedia page on cryogenic energy storage if one thinks the space in a modified tower may not be available.

Last edited by jagdish on Jun 15, 2018 7:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

That’s the finding of a recent paper by Matthew C. Nisbet, a communications professor at Northeastern University. Nisbet examined the climate-change and energy grants given by 19 green-leaning philanthropies—including familiar names like the Hewlett, Kresge and MacArthur foundations. Between 2011 and 2015, the 19 foundations made 2,502 grants totaling nearly $557 million to environmental groups like the Sierra Club (the largest single recipient, with nearly $49 million in grants), Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund.

Of that $557 million, the big environmental groups received nearly $187 million to promote renewable energy and efficiency. They got another $92.5 million for “climate change-related communication, media and mobilization” and nearly $82 million to oppose hydraulic fracturing and to “promote actions to limit/oppose [the] fossil fuel industry.” But “no grants were focused on promoting nuclear energy, though $175,000 in grants were devoted to opposing nuclear energy for cost and safety reasons.”

ENERGY CREATED THROUGH FUSION IS 3–4 TIMES MORE POWERFUL THAN THE ENERGY RELEASED BY FISSION.

And fission energy is 3–4 MILLION TIMES more powerful than burning fossil carbon for energy!

The new Allam cycle on the verge of proving itself at the Exelon La Porte pilot plant is poised to finally make carbon capture and storage (CCS) energy technology profitable. It's "pipe-line ready" CO2 is intended for further fracking for oil production. This keeps Big Carbon going in a climate-change-friendly way.

Aside from leftist propaganda based in energy density ignorance and cognitive dissonance, the molten chloride salt fast reactor (MCFR) advanced nuclear reactor design can still be viable and useful even after the well-funded US military defense contractor Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works® cracks the fusion nut with its CFR ahead of ITER's first plasma in 2025? Dakota lignite intends to use the Allam Cycle for CCS coal power production sending the CO2 to Bakken oil production. If and when CFR shows up perhaps after MCFR tech comes online, fossil carbon energy production can be ramped down, and both fission and fusion energy can then be leveraged for oceanic and terrestrial carbon extraction to effectively re-balance the global carbon cycle to mitigate climate-change from atmospheric carbon.

There was a time when the Germans were technology leaders, n'est-ce pas?

_________________"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

Richer by experience, the Germans could run their existing reactors for remaining lifetime, a low cost option. Within a few years, the Russians and the Chinese could be selling power from their floating nuclear powerhouses. That could be an answer to the green enthusiasts.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum